kernel-headers downgrade failure

[Reindl Harald]

Am 04.08.2012 13:14, schrieb Jared K. Smith:
> On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 9:16 AM, Reindl Harald <h.reindl at thelounge.net> wrote:
>> so until someone knows what is going wrong in 3.5 the
>> right decision would have been build 3.4.7 for F17 too
>> instead psuh blindly 3.5 out - and after such decisions
>> someone is wondering why people start ranting?
> 
> If there's one thing I know, it's that new kernels aren't pushed out
> blindly. 

how else is it explained that there is a bugreport and the reaction of
the kernel-maintainer is "not my component", re-assigns it and
pushs the kernel to stable

and even if it is the intel-driver and not the kernel-package
this is a DISTRIBUTION and as long nobody could figure out
what is going wrong 3.4.7 is the way to go

> If anything, I think our kernel team is doing a great job of
> being open about what they're working on, when they're planning on
> pushing out a new kernel, and looking at user feedback.

this is all fine but if there is a report that update
from 3.4 to 3.5 breaks boot all this does not help you

same happended with 3.3 where one single configure flag
made the difference and we had over weeks creaping boot
and partly completly unsuccessful

> Also, let me once again point out that ranting won't get you very far
> here.

you missed the point where my answer came

it was a diret reaction to "IMO, the community would be served better
if they tried packages from updates-testing early and more often"
while i see how much it serves me better to use updates-testing over
years all the time and now the second time a kernel-update made it to
stable while ignoring my bugreports

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 262 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20120804/ae43708e/attachment.sig>